This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
The CIFOR Criteria and Indicators Research
Program 1
Ravi Prabhu 2
; . l• . •
Abstract-The paper provides an overview over a four-year international research program to develop criteria and indicators for
sustainable forest management at the forest management unit level
led by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). It
outlines the scope of the research, the methods used and the most
important results obtained so far. The paper focuses on the development of three ofthe key C&I Tools that the project aims to deliver,
the CIFOR Generic C&I Template, the Basic Assessment Guide
(BAG) for social sustainability and the Criteria and Indicators
Modification and Adaptation Tool (CIMAT). It discusses the utility
of these tools with respect to developing locally relevant and scientifically sound criteria and indicators at the forest management unit
level. The paper also explores the relevance and utility of such C&I
to the development of cost-effective feedback and monitoring arrangements in the context of the complex ecological and social
systems offorests in the humid tropics. It concludes that criteria and
indicators can playa useful role in facilitating improvements to
forest management through the development of such monitoring
arrangements, thereby catalyzing the development of adaptive comanagement systems in tropical forests.
Forest managers are faced with two fundamental problems: conceptualising and operationalising sustain ability
(Moffat 1994) in the context offorest management, while at
the same time dealing adequately with the complex and
dynamic ecological, social and economic systems involved.
Zadeh (1973) has pointed out that there is an inverse
relationship between the complexity of systems and our
ability to make precise and yet significant statements about
their behaviour. This is because uncertainty is an inherent
quality of complex systems.
In order to deal effectively with the complexity inheren tin
forested ecosystems there is need to follow an adaptive
management philosophy that embraces the attributes of
persistence, change and unpredictability (Holling and Meffe,
1996). This means that management will need to continuously challenge and evaluate its own hypotheses, following
thereby a course of iterative improvement. It is within
this context that the development of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management (C&I) must take
place. Criteria and indicators are tools that can be used to
conceptualise, communicate, evaluate and implement
sustainable forest management. As tools for monitoring
and feedback they can contribute to the management of
lpaper presented at the North American Science Symposium: Toward a
Unified Framework for Inventorying and Monitoring Forest Ecosystem
Resources, Guadalajara, Mexico, November 1-6,1998.
2Ravi Prabhu is with the Center for International Forestry Research,
P.O. Box 6596, JKPWB Jakarta 10065, Indonesia. Tel: +62-251-622622;
fax: +62-251-622 100; e-mail: r.prabhu@Cgiar.org
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
complexity through iterative improvement in an adaptive
management environment.
The development of appropriate criteria and indicators
for sustainable forest management has been high on the
international forests agenda for some years now. The first
suggestions in this regard were made by the International
Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO, 1992). The need for
criteria and indicators was also emphasized during the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio in 1992 and reiterated more recently
during the meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Forests (IPF 1997). Currently there are about nine intergovernmental (in the broadest sense) initiatives on developing
criteria and indicators for the regional and national levels
(Granholm et al. 1996) and very many more ini tiatives at the
Forest Management Unit (FMU) or Sub-national level
(Prabhu and Tan 1996). Most ofthe latter have developed in
response either to certification of forest management or
within the framework of ITTO's Target 2000 objective.
This paper focuses on research on criteria and indicators
for sustainable forest management led by the Center for
International Forestry Research (CIFOR). This research
has focused on developing C&I for the forest management
unit level. It is important to note that C&I may be identified
at various levels: global, regional (and eco-regional), national, and local or forest management unit. Research shows
that it is unlikely that a single set of criteria and indicators
will apply uniformly across the globe, or that a set of
criteria and indicators developed for the national level will
be meaningful at the forest level (Prabhu et al. 1996, Woodley
et al. 1998).
Following Prabhu et al. (1998a) criteria and indicators can
be defined as:
Criterion-A standard that a thing is judged by. Criteria are the intermediate points to which the information
provided by indicators can be integrated and where an
interpretable assessment crystallises. Principles form the
final point of integration. Criteria should be treated as
reflections of knowledge, where knowledge is the accumulation of related information over a long period of time. It can
be viewed as a large-scale selective combination or union of
related pieces of information.
Indicator-An indicator is any variable or component of
the forest ecosystem or the relevant management systems
used to infer attributes of the sustainability of the resource
and its utilisation. Indicators should convey a 'single meaningful message'. This 'single message' is termed information. It represents an aggregate of one or more data elements with certain established relationships.
From CIFOR's perspective it js the facility of C&I to
organize information most relevant to sustainable forest
management in an operational, transparent, and acceptable
399
manner that makes them ideal tools for the development of
adaptive management systems. Fundamental to the success
of adaptive management systems is that this kind of information be available to all stakeholders involved in the
management process. Criteria and indicators can therefore
ultimately enable and empower rational and effective decision making in forest management units.
The research carried out at CIFOR will be described in
terms ofthe two chronological phases of the project, moving
on from there to an examination of some of the key
products and future steps.
The First Phase _ _ _ _ _ __
In 1994 CIFOR set out a collaborative research program
to test and develop criteria and indicators for sustainable
forest management (C&O at the FMU level. The objectives
were to:
• develop a methodology to evaluate and generate C&I,
• generate a minimum number of cost-effective and reliable C&I for each test site, based on iterative and
comparative field evaluations of selected sets, and
• initiate work on a system to evaluate the sustainability
of forest management as a whole, based on the recommended criteria and indicators.
This research program was based on comparative field
evaluation ('tests') of the leading sets of C&I in one case
study each in five countries: Indonesia, Cote d'Ivoire, Brazil,
Austria and Cameroon. In preparation a pre-test of methods
was conducted in Germany. This work has been reported
(Prabhu et al. 1996, Prabhu et al. 1998b) with the main focus
being on the identification of criteria and indicators held in
common between the countries in which testing took place.
The approach involved interdisciplinary teams of foresters, social scientists and ecologists, selecting and evaluating C&I from Smart Wood (Rainforest Alliance, USA),
Initiative Tropenwald (ITW~Germany), and Woodmark
(Responsible Forestry Standards, Soil Association, UK) on
all sites. The Deskundigenwerkgroep Duurzaam Bosbeheer
(DDB-the Netherlands) and the Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia (LEI-Indonesia) sets were evaluated at all sites
except Germany. In the sum 1100 C&I were tested in each
of the selected countries. This process involved three phases,
conceived as three separate filters. It is important to note
that this was not simply a mechanical sifting process. It
explicitly allowed creative inputs and modifications to criteria and indicators, provided these were also subjected to the
evaluation process. A recent example of the application of
this process is provided by Woodley et al. (1998), and reported in these proceedings.
To assess the C&I during field work an iterative approach
was used in which nine attributes were identified as important to evaluate C&I. These attributes seek to determine
whether the C&I are:
1. Summary or integrative measures,
2. closely and unambiguously related to the assessment
goal,
3. adequately responsive to stress or change in the system
4. diagnostically specific,
5. appealing to users,
400
6.
7.
8.
9.
easy to detect, record and interpret (feasible),
precisely defined (clear),
produce replicable results (reliable), and
relevant.
Costs associated with an indicator were sought to be
minimised by asking three questions:
1. where to place an indicator within a system in order to
sum up a satisfactory amount of information on interactions,
2. how to define the indicator such that information is
integrated meaningfully, and
3. over what intervals of time should this information be
collected, leaving the question of defining the actual
field procedures for a later phase.
To be cost-effective, indicators were to be selected in such
a way that they provided information on changes at 'choke
points' in the system. Such a selection of indicators would
ensure that information on systems interactions prior to the
'choke point' will be reflected by changes at the choke point
itself. Having selected the 'choke points', the second consideration was then to further define the indicator. Indicators
could be descriptive (qualitative) or quantitative. Finally
the interval of time over which information was to be
integrated was considered.
Analysis of the results of the tests showed that a strong
element of commonality existed among the sets of C&I
proposed at the three tropical sites. The ecological indicators emerged as being more generic than the others, with
roughly 70% being held in common among the tropical
sites. Indicators dealing with management prescriptions
cam next with 60% being held in common. The social C&I
were least generic with only about 30% being held in common. This was probably due both to the weakness of the
social C&I tested and the high variability of the social and
value systems involved. Comparison of these results with
those obtained from the test in Austria revealed that most of
the criteria and indicators identified as being common to
the three tropical sites were also listed in the Austrian set.
This suggests that at least in closed forest formations the
development of a common 'core' set of C&I is possible,
however site specific elements will continue to remain important particularly for social aspects and lower levels of
hierarchy, such as verifiers.
The CIFOR team also analysed the divergence in selected
C&I among teams and tried to determine the reasons for
such variation. Three important sources of variation were
identified. The composition or nature of the sets of C&I
selected for testing was the most fundamental, since they
formed the pool from which team members selected the best
C&I. The composition of the expert teams also proved an
important influence because of individual interests and
expertise among team members. In this context we are
reminded by Lele and Norgaard (1996) that efforts by natural scientists to operationalise the concept of sustainability
in a 'scientific' manner are "fraught with dangers because
values, opinions, and social influences are an inextricable
part of science, especially applied science". 'Finally, a series
of site-specific factors, including resource ownership and
access, history offorest management, forest system ecology,
demography and culture, were identified as important. As
a result of the research during Phase 1 a subset of principles ,
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
criteria, indicators and verifiers was identified that were
common to all sites (see Prabhu et al. 1996 for details).
The Second Phase
The first phase revealed weaknesses related particularly
to C&I for social sustainability and for conservation of
biodiversity in managed forests. Furthermore during the
first phase the CIFOR project had focused exclusively on
large-scale commercial management of natural forests. It
was felt that there was a need to broaden this to include
community based forest management and plantation forests. Recognising that no single set of C&I was likely to be
viable across the globe the aim of the second phase, which
concludes in early 1999, is to deliver a tool-box for the
development and application ofC&I. In this approach users
are presented with options and guidelines for developing
criteria and indicators but are required to make their own
choices regarding which assessment tools and decision making methods are appropriate for their situations. In this
section we provide an overview of the research carried out
during the second phase, focusing in the next section on
some of its outputs.
Social C&I
During Phase I of the C&I proj ect, the difficulty of assessing social C&I stood out clearly as a problem. Most reliable
methods available to social scientists were too time consuming; and the quick ones were too "dirty". Three topics were
identified as priorities, because of their ubiquity in the C&I
selections and concerns of Phase I teams. These were:
• Definition of relevant stakeholders in forest management
• Intergenerational access to resources, and
• Rights and means to manage forests
The focus here was to develop methods that would allow
these criteria on inter-generational access to resources and
participation/co-management to be meaningfully adapted to
local site conditions. At the same time this research would
contribute towards improving the overall 'generic template'
and exposing the causal relationships between these C&I
and sustainability. The main output of tools related to social
C&I are a 'social sustainability assessment kit', an improved
selection of indicators and definition of verifiers where
possible. The 'kit' consists of the Basic Assessment Guide
(BAG), additional methods ('Grab-BAG) a scoring guide and
the current best bets for social C&I.
The development of the 'kit' involved tests of 12 social
science methods in two areas of Cameroon (a central area
near Mbalmayo and Mt. Cameroon, to the Northwest) and of
Indonesia (the P.T. Kiani Lestari area in central East
Kalimantan and the Bulungan Research Forest to the north
of that province) and in two sites in the state of Para in
Brazil. The team worked with communities in "forest-rich"
and "forest-poor" areas.
As an example of how the testing proceeded is the work
on "inter-generational access to resources", an issue widely
deemed important--and very difficult to assess-in sustainable
forest management. Use was made of data from a methodological pre-test conducted in and around Danau Sentarum
Wildlife Reserve in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Its purpose was to contribute to the development of principles,
criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management
(SFM). In a paper on the topic the methods pre-tested were
described, and earlier versions ofthe principles, criteria and
indicators re-evaluated, re-ordered and scored in a dual
attempt: to develop simple, inexpensive and reliable assessment methods, and to contribute to our understanding of
the causal links between inter-generational access to resources and sustainable forest management.
Economics C&I
The question of suitable C&I for assessing economic impacts of forest management has been addressed through a
conceptual paper by Ruitenbeek and Cartier (1998). The
paper suggests that some commonly used C&I are inappropriate because they are frequently misinterpreted, are methodologically unsound, are inadequately developed, or are too
costly to implement. The authors therefore offer both a
'negative list' of indicators, and a 'positive list' of recommended C&I that can address the issues and concerns
raised in this paper.
Some attributes of the 'positive list' are summarized in
Table 1. It reflects the broader needs to address efficiency,
equity, sustainability and a precautionary stance in FMU
Table1.-Recommended Economic Principles for Sustainable Forest Management (from Ruitenbeek & Cartier 1998).
Principle
Examples of Criteria and Indicators
Forest management is socially efficient.
Efficient timber extraction methods are applied.
Sustainable harvesting of non-timber forest products occurs.
Management generates positive economic rent.
Intragenerational equity is enhanced.
Involvement of local population in forest management.
Equitable positive rent share to all partiCipants.
Transparent allocation of concessions.
Forest estate and forest use options are maintained.
Forest migration pressure is minimized.
Non-forest policies do not affect forest management.
Existence of non-confiscatory land use policies.
Precautionary measures promote system resilience.
Anti-corruption measures in place.
Existence of broad-based adaptive management plans.
Establishment of effective buffer zones.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
401
management. What is perhaps notable about this list is that
it does not necessarily involve a lot of economic calculations
relating to pricing and values: many C&I that are of economic relevance are simply physical measures.
Within the 'negative list,' they include: (i) use of internal
rate of return, which is a frequently used but inaccurate
measure of economic efficiency; (ii) valuation of biodiversity,
carbon sequestration, and certain ecological functions that
are equally well captured by a simple physical accounting
of the forest biomass; and, (iii) use of complex economic
indices and coefficients to characterize income distribution
concerns.
In this paper the authors argue that economic criteria
and indicators of sustainable forest management should
reflect the dimensions of efficiency, equity and sustainability, and need to look beyond the forest stand to institutional
and policy issues. If such criteria inform our decisions, we
may yet end up with exploitation of the forests. It would,
however, be rational exploitation; rational exploitation reflecting an enlightened self-interest that captures the broader
global needs of current and future generations.
Biodiversity C&I
Biodiversity is an extraordinarily broad concept and,
given the huge diversity of life in tropical forests, it is
impossible to make rapid direct assessments of biodiversity
in forests in anything other than a superficial manner. It is
likely that there will be limited skilled human resources and
time for biodiversity assessment in any system of criteria
and indicators, so it is important that we design tools that
do not require expert application and interpretation. A
consistent result of all the (independent) expert teams
during Phase 1 of the C&I research project was that none of
the proposed indicators for conservation of biodiversity
were adequate-either due to problems of practicability, or
relevance to managers. Consequently, a process was started
in 1996 to devise "new and improved" indicators, initially
for genetic diversity, and later for other aspects ofbiodiversity. In both cases we assembled an international team of
experts to a workshop to "brainstorm" ideas for indicators
and ''verifiers'' (which are the actual measurements to be
collected in the field).
As part of CIFOR's continuing efforts to develop operational C&I related to biodiversity the workshop was held in
Bogor at the end of April 1997. It concluded that the approach adopted by the Genetic Resources Workshop in the
preceding year (Namkoong et al. 1996), i.e. focusing on the
processes that maintain biodiversity, offered the most effective basis for considering biodiversity C&I. These ideas have
subsequently been field tested. The publication on the genetic indicators has been adapted following the field test
(Namkoong et al. 1998). CIFOR's research on biodiversity
C&I suggests that, in contrast to more traditional approaches
to assessing taxonomic diversity, it may be possible to assess
the effects of management practices on biodiversity by
examining the state of those processes that generate or
maintain biodiversity. The indicators and verifiers that
were suggested examine the state of these processes. Seven
indicators were proposed, supported by numerous verifiers.
For each indicator, quick and easy verifiers are recommended, those designated "Primary" verifiers are used first,
402
and more sophisticated ("·Secondary") verifiers are used
only if clear results are not obtained from Primary verifiers.
The ini tial publication on biodiversity indica tors (Stork et al.
1997) produced following the workshop was revised, based
on the experiences in the field test. About 22 verifiers that
were considered practical, relevant, and responsive to change
were identified as a result of the test (Annex 1 summarises
the results of the field test). Great emphasis was placed on
practicability because of the project team's belief in "adaptive management", by which managers would be capable of
carrying out self-assessments, with a view to modifying
their practices accordingly. This implies that the data would
need to be collected and interpreted by non-experts.
A key outstanding issue is how to combine information
from many indicators to reach an overall decision. Another
key issue is the need for research on setting baselines and
thresholds. The final step in the C&I process leading towards adaptive management is to provide the forest
manager(s) with a system whereby their analysis of indicators provides not only an assessment of sustainability, but
also proposes possible mitigation measures. For example, a
biodiversity indicator of tree size structure may be unsatisfactory-one solution might be to raise the diameter cutting
limit, but this may have negative consequences on economic
indicators. The appropriate mitigation measure needs to
take impact on all indicators into account. This is however a
proposal for future research as it goes beyond the current
scope of the project.
CIFOR is also carrying out additional research on indicators related to water quality and quantity in Central
Kalimantan. In an effort to develop these indicators further
we are seeking to determine whether it is possible to determine spatially explicit causal links between management
interactions and changes to water quality and quantity.
First results suggest there may be difficulties in doing so.
Should this hold true it would diminish the value of such
indicators to forest managers, inasmuch as they will not be
able to clearly link management interventions to these
changes.
Community Based Forest Management
Research on C&I for community managed forests took
place as four 'tests' of C&I in Indonesia, Cameroon and
Brazil. The findings of the first pre-test in Indonesia in
Tengganan suggest that systems resilience and risk management are two issues bridging socio-economic, ecological
and managerial sustainability considerations. Knowledge
was another issue highlighted as consequential to good
management practice. The survival of highly evolved systems of natural resource management, such as those witnessed in Tengganan, was seen as closely interdependent
with cultural survival. Tengganan's socio-religious
organisation seemed to playa crucial role in setting management objectives and regulating forest access and interventions. Amongst the more complicated issues encountered in
Tengganan was the question of identifying forest stakeholder groups, their various management objectives, the
allocation of priority amongst these and how this affects the
distribution of forestry associated costs and benefits. The
general consensus was that these are key issues to understand how the social and ecological systems integrate. In
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
Tengganan, marked inequalities seemed to be inherent in
the social system underpinning Sustainable Forest Management. However, the system appears to be fair according
to the religious doctrine of its perpetuators.
The results of the pre-test were then fed into the methodology to be used in the three following tests in Cameroon,
Indonesia and Brazil. As a result of the Cameroon test it
became apparent to the researcher team note that although
villagers may lack the analytical skills and knowledge used
by experts to identify factors affecting the sustainability of
the local situation, all members of the expert team agreed
that access to local knowledge was essential to their gaining
a good understanding of the local situation. Indeed, the team
relied heavily on local knowledge to conduct its work.
Community participation is important for building a
broad-based consensus between different forest stakeholder
groups. A consensus on priority C&I, if reached with imperfect or incomplete knowledge ofthe knowledge and interests
of certain stakeholder groups, may reinforce inequitable
power balances and conceal the need for more thorough
investigations. Naturally, if only some stakeholders i.e.
policymakers or conservationists, participate in developing
C&I then the negative implications their interests carry for
other, non-participating, stakeholders, may not be fully
exposed by the C&I developed. Maximizing forest peoples'
participation will help clarify the trade-offs and compromises incurred through the distribution of forest-derived
costs and benefits. When these are established, it becomes
possible to review the 'fairness' of the distribution patterns.
The second full test of C&I for CMF was carried out in
Sanggau, West Kalimantan (Indonesia) and the third and
last test was carried out in Para, Brazil. The final report for
this research activity will be available in early 1999.
Other Research
Research is also underway on developing C&I for plantation forests. The focus of t~is work is on industrial scale,
quick-rotation plantations in Indonesia and longer rotation
teak plantations in India. A similar collaborative research
program is due to commence in Brazil. Work on C&I based
decision tools is the most recent of the CIFOR project's
activi ties. The research aims to test various decision support
methods that would enable resolution of contradictory information and facilitate holistic decisions. Such techniques
include the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Delphi methods etc.
It also aims to develop a knowledge based computer tool
that enables adaptation of scientific sound C&I, to local
situations using locally available expertise, and incorporating local expectations. This is the Criteria and Indicators
Modification and Adaptation Tool (ClMAT) described below.
Tools from the Tool-box
The 'tool-box' under development at CIFOR will contain
some nine 'tools' on completion of the second phase of the
project in early 1999. Using our own experience of testing
C&I as the model, our approach is to focus on developing
three types of tools. The first type is the development of
C&I to form a 'generic template' or starting platform. The
second type would enable adaptation of the generic template
to local situations. The third type facilitates application of
the C&I. This is summed up in Figure 1. For the purpose of
this paper only three ofthose tools are described briefly here.
CIFOR's Generic C&I Template
In most tropical areas the development ofC&I at the FMU
level (or at any other level) has either yet to begin, or is in its
infancy. Faced with this situation managers charged with
the development ofC&1 are asking how they should go about
this challenging task. They will be concerned to develop
C&I appropriate for their context and comparable to international efforts. The Generic C&I Template provides a
comprehensive set of cri teria and indica tors (C & I) com piled
from CIFOR's research on the testing ofC & I for the sustainable management of forests as a starting point for their
deliberations.
The "generic template," is not to be confused with an ideal
and universally applicable set of C&I. Although using the
term "generic" in the title may invoke query as to the scope
E.g.
Assessment of
Criteria and Indicators'
Locally Adapted Set of I------+-----~
Management,
Generic Template ..-------if'----~ Criteria and Indicators
Management Planning,
Implementation.
Figure 1.-lllustration of the use of the generic template and the tools for adaptation and application of C&I.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
403
of applicability ("generic to what?"), it is envisaged that
this template would be used primarily for tropical natural
forests managed for commercial purposes. A generic template for tropical plantation and community-managed forestsmay be provided later. Hence, the C&I outlined in the
template are generic relative to a specifically defined commercial-natural forest type in the humid tropical zone.
However, many of the C&I in this document have also
emerged in tests temperate forests in Austria and in Boise
(Idaho), USA. "Generic" also implies that this C&I template
can be employed by a variety of user groups. We have
identified potential users to include certification bodies,
government officials, donors, forest managers, project managers, and scientists.
The C&I in the Template are not intended to be used as a
tool to directly assess either the sustainability of forest
management practices or the performance of a particular
FMU. Rather, they are intended to provide users with a
"starting platform" to formulate a more locally sound set of
C&I. Thus the adoption ofthe complete set is not mandatory.
Once adapted, however, the set can be used for a variety of
applications, which include the assessment of management ,
management planning, and implementation. The C&I set
in this document are organised along two major 'axes':
1. The 'vertical' axis pertains to a hierarchical framework of principles, criteria, indicators and verifiers
(P, C, I & V).
2. The 'horizontal' axis divides the C&I into four major
areas of concern: policy, ecology, social, and the production of goods and services.
As an example an excerpt of C&I from the Generic Template are provided in Annex 2. This example focuses on an
aspect of social sustainabili ty.
The BAG (Basic Assessment Guide for
Human Well-Being)
The BAG is designed as a mariual to be used by individuals
and organisations wishing to assess the sustain ability of a
timber operation especially in the tropics. The manual has
been developed, based on results of systematic methods tests
in Cameroon, Indonesia and Brazil with supplementary
work in Trinidad and the United States. It assumes assessors will visit timber company base camps and villages, ask
pertinent questions of people in the area, and examine
available data from the company and local government
offices, in addition to the methods spelt out in the BAG. The
BAG focuses on certain critical social issues. It identifies the
'best bets' for social C&I as a starting point for the assessment of human well-being. Next it provides a cook-book
approach to assessing human well-being in five steps:
1. identification of relevant stakeholders;
2. assessment of security of intergenerational access to
resources;
3. assessment of rights and obligations to manage forests
cooperatively;
4. assessment of the health of forests, forest actors and
cultures; and
5. a scoring method basedona 1-10 scale, weighted by the
importance of the principle.
404
Although this cookbook approach does not represent the
ideal, it can provide useful guidance in cases where assessors are not qualified social scientists. The BAG is aimed at
a person with a bachelor's degree in a natural science. For
more qualified users another manual called the 'Grab-BAG'
is being developed.
CIMAT (Criteria and Indicators
Modification and Adaptation Tool)
The goal of this research on the Criteria and Indicators
Modification and Adaptation Tool (ClMAT) is to help people
to adapt the generic hierarchy of principles , criteria, indicators and verifiers to meet local expectations and conditions.
Modifications to the hierarchy are required for the following
reasons:
• filling specific knowledge gaps (for example, about local
species important for biodiversity assessment),
• modifying indicators to local conditions (for example, to
reflect local social or cultural considerations),
• adding indicators where extra information is deemed
important, and
• rejecting them if they are redundant for assessment of
sustainability in the local context.
An ideal computer-based tool which supports such modifications would do three things:
• Firstly, and most pragmatically, it would make the
clerical job of keeping track of changes to the C&I more
straightforward than it currently is, thereby increasing
the efficiency of modification.
• Secondly, it would enhance the quality of modifications
by encouraging people to think hard about the changes
they make, encouraging them to record justifications
for their changes, enabling cross-referencing of related
C&I in different parts of the hierarchy and providing
access to other people's experience in doing the modification task.
• Finally, and most idealistically, a computer tool would
help with the evolution of C&I amongst the global
community, by providing a resource for interdisciplinary teamwork and an electronic forum for sharing C&I
knowledge across locations and disciplines.
ClMAT is an early and tentative step towards this ideal
tool. ClMAT will be a tool for people who are developing C&I,
using CIFOR's generic template as a starting point. Its
development has been based upon a user needs survey.
Three groups of users were identified:
• In-house and in-country experts who have been involved
in the evolution of the current C&I sets.
• International C&I stakeholders.
• Assessors/certifiers.
ClMATis not an expert system, in the sense that it will not
make decisions, nor will it act as an expert guiding a user
through an assessment of sustainability: It is a tool for
knowledge management, rather than a decision-making
system. ClMAT contains a knowledge base of C&I for sustainable forest management. This knowledge base is essentially incomplete, and contains 'hooks' upon which users can
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
hang knowledge which is relevant to sustain ability of
forest management in the particular context they are interested in. CIMATwill invite the user to bring their knowledge
to the system, in order to enhance and build upon the
knowledge within it. The core ofCIMATwill be the current
knowledge base of C&I. This is the template set of C&I
which users will be able to modify by bringing their own and
other people's local or specialist knowledge to the system.
Each criterion, indicator or verifier in the hierarchy will be
an 'object', which can be changed, deleted, added or moved.
It will be possible to create links between indicator objects
that have things in common, or which are related in some
way. Each object will remember the sequence of modifications that it undergoes, so each indicator will end up with its
own 'history' of how it has been adapted to meet local
conditions.
In addition, ClMAT will include knowledge about how
and why the C&I objects can be modified. This knowledge
will enable CIMAT to suggest possible modifications to the
user, and also to encourage users to think about why they
are making modifications and to provide justifications for
their changes. By recording not only changes to indicators,
but also some of the reasoning leading to these changes, it is
hoped that ClMAT will be a useful tool for teams who are
involved in the ongoing process of developing and adapting
sets of C&I for local forest management.
Finally CIMAT will also include knowledge about how
the C&I can be applied. In the current version of ClMAT
this function will not be supported as an interactive module.
It is helpful to think of a sustainability assessment as a
process of argumentation, in which the user's data and the
knowledge base are used in combination to provide arguments for and against an assessment of sustainable management. In this way it may be possible to be sensitive to
cases where, for example, the broad sweep of an assessment
points to sustainable management but a few negative indicators can provide critical counter-arguments pointing to
specific areas which require attention. There exist probabilistic and quantitative approaches to handling risk, as opposed to uncertainty, which is by definition not quantifiable.
However, due to the great variety of ways in which uncertainty can be introduced in a C&I assessment, it may be
more informative to a user if they are provided with information about the possible sources of uncertainty in a final
assessment.
Conclusions __________
The C&I research program at CIFOR is quite comprehensive touching as it does large scale management of
natural forests, community managed forests and plantations (not reported here) on the one hand, and biodiversity
C&I, social C&I and C&I based decision tools on the other.
However it is not exhaustive, i.e. all aspects of sustainable
forest management are not covered. Instead the focus has
been on the areas where a comparative advantage is believed to exist or where little research is taking place.
CIFOR's vision for the C&I under development is that
they would eventually become an integral part of the monitoring and feedback systems of forest management units.
This could either be for large (industrial) scale units or for
community managed forests. It is CIFOR's intention to
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
follow-up on our research on criteria and indicators for
sustainable forest management (on completion of the current Phase 2) with research on their utility and effectiveness within actual management units as key tools for
enabling adaptive co-management.
"Adaptive co-management", in CIFOR's use of the
phrase, involves self-improving management systems based
on a conscious learning process in management; the integration or involvement of all relevant stakeholders in a selfmanagement process; and recognition in management of the
dynamism and complexity of human and natural systems
touching on management Adaptive co-management (ACM),
in different forms, has been emerging as a promising means
of resource management with forest related, agricultural,
and fisheries applications. So far, progress has been via
piecemeal and disconnected initiatives, and there is little
understanding of how to maximize its contribution to sustainable tropical forest management. A key aspect of ACM
is the mechanism by which managers can monitor the
outcomes of their interventions and so enable conscious
learning. There is therefore a pressing need for a monitoring
arrangement that delivers comprehensive, relevant, scientifically sound and cost-effective information regarding the
sustainability of resource use to forest managers. Therefore
the research will aim to move the C&I from their current
form of being information targets to their integration as part
of a user friendly monitoring arrangement, i.e. their use in
day-today management. This should help establish standards for assessing and monitoring sustainable forestry
and in evaluating the success of adaptive co-management
models. Research on models of C&I based monitoring arrangements will enable bridging the gap between the
definition of sustainability and its operationalisation in a
complex forest environment. Furthermore such monitoring
arrangement are expected to ease integration of local level
information to sub-national and national levels of decision
making, thus improving the information basis for
policymakers.
Literature Cited
Boyle, T.J.B., Lawes, M., Manokaran, N., Prabhu, R, Ghazoul, J.,
Sastrapadja, S., H.-C. Thang., Dale, V., Eeley, H., Finegan, B.,
Soberon, J., Stork, N.E. (1998). Criteria and Indicators for
Assessing the Sustainability of Forest Management: A Practical Approach to Assessment of Biodiversity. CIFOR Bogor,
Indonesia.
Granholm, H., Vahanen, T. and Sahlberg, S. (Eds.) (1996). Background document. Intergovernmental Seminar on Criteria and
Indicators. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Helsinki,
Finland.
Holling, C.S. and Meffe, G.K., (1996). Command and control and the
pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10, 328-337.
IPF Secretariat (1997): Final Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Forests. Advance unedited text. http://www.un.org/
dpcsdldsdlipf.htm; gopher://gopher. un. org:70100/escIcn17lipflsession4lIPFIV (March 27, 1997).
ITTO (1992). ITTO Criteria for measurement of sustainable tropical
forest management. ITTO Policy Development Series 3,
Yokohama.
Lele, S. and Norgaard, RB., (1996). Sustainability and the scientist's
burden. Conservation Biology 10, 354-365.
Moffat, I. (1994) On Measuring Sustainable Development Indicators. International Journal of Sustainable Development and
World Ecology 1, 97-109.
405
Namkoong, G., Boyle, T.J.B., El-Kassaby, Y., Eriksson, G.,
Gregorious, H.-R, Joly, H., Kremer, A., Savolainen, 0.,
Wickneswari, R., Young, A, Zeh-Nlo., M., Prabhu, R (1998).
Criteria and Indicators for Assessing the Sustain ability of Forest
Management: Conservation of Genetic Diversity. CIFOR Bogor,
Indonesia.
Namkoong, G., Boyle, T.J.B.,H.-RGregorious.,Joly,H.,Sovalainen,
0., Wickneswari, R, Young, A (1996). Testing Criteria and
Indicators for Assessing the Sustainability of Forest Management: Genetic Criteria and Indicators. CIFOR Working Paper
No. 10. CIFOR Bogor, Indonesia.
Prabhu, R, Colfer, C.J.P., Dudley, RG. (1998a). Guidelines for
Developing, Testing, and Selecting Criteria and Indicators for
Sustainable Forest management. CIFOR Bogor, Indonesia.
Prabhu, R, Colfer, C.J.P., Venkateswarlu, P., Tan, L.T., Soekmadi,
R, Wollenberg, E. (1996). Testing Criteria and Indicators for the
Sustainable Management ofForests: Phase I Final Report. CIFOR
Bogor, Indonesia.
Prabhu, R, Maynard, W., Eba'a Atyi, R, Colfer, C.J.P., Shepherd,
G., Venkateswarlu, P., Tiayon, F. (1998b) Testing and Developing Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in Cameroon: The Kribi Test. Final Report. CIFOR,
Bogor, Indonesia.
Prabhu, R and Tan, L.C., (1996). Out ofthe woods? Assessment of
sustainable forest management. In: Tan, L.C. 1996. Initiatives on
Assessing Sustain ability: Status and Future Directions. Summary of the open session of the Third International Project
Advisory Panel (IPAP) meeting on testing criteria and indicators
for sustainable management of forests, Turrialba, Costa Rica,
February 29-March 1, 1996. CATIE/CIFOR Special Publication,
CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Ruitenbeek, H.J. and Cartier, C., 1998. Rational exploitations:
economic criteria and indicators for sustainable management of
406
tropical forests. CIFOR Occasional Paper, Bogor, Indonesia.
(In press)
Stork, N.E., Boyle, T.J.B., Dale, v., Eeley, H., Finegan, B., Lawes,
M., Manokaran, N., Prabhu, R, Soberon, J. (1997). Criteria and
Indicators for Assessing the Sustainability of Forest Management: Conservation of Biodiversity. CIFOR Working Paper No.
17. Cifor. Bogor, Indonesia
Woodley, S., Alward, G., Gutierrez; L.I.., Hoekstra, T., Holt, B.,
Livingstone, L., Loo, J., Skibicki, A, Williams, C., Wright, P.
(1998). North American Test of Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forestry (Volume 1 & 2). Final Report.
Zadeh, L.A, (1973). Outline of a new approach to the analysis of
complex systems and decision processes. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man
Cyber., SMC-3, 28-44.
Tools _________________________
CIFOR (1998) The CIFOR Criteria & Indicators Generic Template.
Draft.
Colfer, C.J.P., Tiani, AM., Brocklesby, M.A., Etuge, P., Sardjono,
M.A, Prabhu, R, McDougall, C., Wadley, RL., Harwell, E.,
Woelfel, J., Diaw, C., Tchikangwa, B. and Guenter, M., (1998).
The BAG (Basic Assessment Guide for Human Well-Being. Draft
manual.
Colfer, C.J.P., Tiani, AM., Brocklesby, M.A., Etuge, P., Sardjono,
M.A., Prabhu, R, McDougall, C., Wadley, RL., Harwell, E.,
Woelfel, J., Diaw, C., Tchikangwa, B. and Guenter, M., (1998).
The Grab Bag: Additional Methods for Assessing Human WellBeing. Draft manual.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
Annex 1: Biodiversity C&I
Practicability of verifiers. This table summarizes the conclusions of the test of biodiversity C&I held in Central Kalimantan
in November 1997 (Boyle et al. 1998). Testing was carried out by a team of inventory technicians from the concessionaire on
the one hand and a team of scientists and technicians on the other. The results of both teams were compared in the field before
conclusions were drawn by the assembled experts.
Primary
V1.1.1: Areal extent of each veg.
Type
V 1.2.1: Number of patches per unit
area
V 1.2.2: Largest patch size of each
veg. Type
V 1.2.3: Area weighted patch size
V 1.2.4: Contagion
V 1.2.5: Dominance
V 1.2.6: Fractal dimension
V 1.3.1: Av. distance among
patches of same cover type
V 1.3.2: Percolation index
V 1.4.1: Total amount of edge for
each veg. Type
V 1.4.2: Edge round largest patch
V 2.1.1: Vertical structure.
V 2.1.2: Size class distributions.
V 2.1.3: Relative abundance of leaf
sizes
V2.1.4: Gap f~equencyfforest
regeneration phase
V 2.1.5: Canopy openness
V 2.2.1: Standing and falien dead
wood.
V 2.2.2: Other structural elements
V 3.1.1 : Abundance of tree species
in different guilds
V 3.1.2: The abundances of avian
guilds
V 3.2.1: Abundance of nests of
social bees.
V 3.2.2: Fruiting success in key
plant species
V 3.2.3: Fruiting intensity of batpollinated species
V 3.2.4: Abundance terrestrial
frugivorous mammals.
V 3.3.1: Pitfall traps
V 4.1.1 Species richness reported
by local people
V 4.1.2: Number of different bird
calls.
V 4.1.3: Numbers of large butterfly
species
V 4.1.4: Number of species in local
markets.
V 4.1.5: Number of leaf types in litter
V 4.1.6: Lists compiled by experts.
V 4.2.1: Temporal changes in
species richness.
V 4.2.2: Time series of
mature/secondary growth species
V 4.2.3 Time series of a and f3
diversities.
V 5.1.1: Measures of the population
size of selected species
V 5.1.2: Time series of relative
population-size estimates
Ease of
assessment
Relevance
?
./
Response to
change
././
?
././
./
././
Accountability
././
?
././
././
Reject
./
././
././
././
Accept
./
x
././
././
././
././
./
?
?
././
././
././
././
././
././
././
././
?
?
Reject
Reject
Accept
Reject
Reject
./
./
././
././
././
././
?
?
Accept
Reject
././
././
././
./'
././
././
././
././
?
?
./
./
././
././
././
././
./../
Reject
Accept
Accept
Reject
./
././
./"
././
./../
Accept
?
././
././
././
././
././
././
././
././
.././
Reject
Accept
./
?
././
./
././
././
././
././
.././
././
Accept
Accept
./
././
././
././
././
Accept
nfa
x
nfa
nfa
nfa
Reject
?
././
././
././
././
Accept
x
././
nfa
nfa
n/a
Reject
x
././
nfa
nfa
nfa
Reject
./
././
././
././
././
././
././
././
././
././
Accept
Accept
./
././
././
././
././
Reject
././
././
././
././
././
Accept
./
././
././
././
././
Reject
./
x
x
././
././
././
././
nfa
nfa
././
nfa
nfa
././
nla
nfa
Accept
Reject
Reject
x
././
nfa
nfa
nfa
Reject
x
././
n/a
n/a
nfa
Reject
x
././
n/a
././
n/a
Reject
x
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
Reject
?
?
?
?
?
?
./
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
././
Cross linkages
?
././
././
Conclusion
Accept
407
Primary
V 5.2.1: Age or size structure·'"
V 5.2.2: life tables and their
statistics.
V 5.3.1: Spatial structure of
populations.
V 6.1.1: Standing and fallen dead
wood.
V 6.1.2: State of decay of all dead
wood.
V 6.1.3: Abundance of small debris.
V 6.1.4: Depth of litter/gradient of
decamp.
V 6.1.5: Abundance of imp.
decomp'ers
V 6.1.6: State of terrestrial leaf
bags.
V 6.2.1: Soil conductivity and pH
V 6.2.2: Soil nutrient levels
V 6.2.3: Insect herbivory
V 7.1.1: Abundance/diversity of
aquatic organisms
V 7.1.2: Chemical composition of
stream water
V 7.1.3: State of aquatic leaf bags
V 7.2.1: Stream flow
Notes: ././
./
?
x
nfa
408
Ease of
assessment
Relevance
x
x
n/a
n/a
Response to
change
n/a
n/a
x
n/a
././
././
n/a
Accountability
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reject
././
././
././
././
Reject
././
././
././
././
././
Accept
?
././
././
././
././
././
././
././
././
./
Reject
Accept
x
././
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reject
././
././
?
././
././
Accept
././
n/a
Cross linkages
Conclusion
Reject
Reject
./
././
?
x
././
././
././
./
nfa
././
././
././
n/a
././
././
././
Reject
Reject
Reject
Accept
./
./
././
././
././
Reject
./
././
././
././
nfa
././
nfa
././
nfa
Accept
Reject
?
x
?
Definitely true
Probably true
Uncertain
Not true
Not assessed
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
Annex 2: Excerpt from the CIFOR Generic C&I Template. A 'Social' Principle
with one Criterion and Related Indicators and Verifiers _ _ _ _ _ _ __
P.3.
Forest Management Maintains or Enhances Fair Intergenerational
Access to Resources and Economic Benefits
C.3.1
Local management is effective in controlling maintenance of, and
access to, the resource
Direct link to P.2
Indirect link to C.1.5; V.2.1.4.1; V.2.1.3.4
1.3.1.1
Ownership and use rights to resources (inter and intra-generational) are clear
and respect preexisting claims
Direct link to 1.3.3.1; 1.1.1.4; 1.6.2.1; 1.4.2.1; 1.2.1.1; 1.2.1.2; 1.2.1.4; C.1.5
Indirect link to 1.3.1.2; 1.3.1.4; 1.3.1.5; 1.4.2.2; 1.4.2.4; 1.1.1.2; 1.2.1.3; 1.1.5.1
1.3.1.2
Rules and norms of resource use are monitored and successfully enforced
Direct link to 1.1.1.3; C.6.4; 1.2.1.1; 1.2.1.2; 1.2.1.4; C.1.5
Indirect link to 1.3.1.1; 1.3.1.3; 1.3.1.5; 1.4.2.1; 1.4.3.1; 1.2.1.3
1.3.1.3
Means of conflict resolution function without violence
Direct link to 1.3.2.1; 1.3.2.4; 1.4.3.1; 1.1.4.1
Indirect link to 1.4.1.2; 1.4.1.3; 1.4.2.4; 1.4.2.5; C.7.2
1.3.1.4
Access to forest resources is perceived locally to be fair
Direct link to 1.3.2.1; 1.4.3.1
Indirect link to 1.4.2.4; 1.4.2.5; C.1.5
V.3.1.4.1 Access of small timber operators to timber concessions
Indirect link to 1.1. 5.4
V.3.1.4.2 Access of non-timber users to non-timber forest products
Indirect link to C.1.5
1.3.1.5
Local people feel secure about access to resources
Direct link to 1.3.3.1; 1.3.3.5; 1.4.2.4; 1.4.2.5; 1.4.3.1; 1.2.1.1; 1.2.1.2; 1.2.1.4;
1.2.1.6; 1.1.1.4
Indirect link to 1.3.3.2; 1.4.1.1; 1.4.1.2; 1.4.1.3; 1.6.1.1; 1.2.1.3; C.1.5; 1.1.5.1
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
409